bryan moochie'' thornton

PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ Top leaders of the Junior Black Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin. Bucky was. P. 143 for abuse of discretion. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. Only the Seventh Circuit has required that a second notice of appeal be filed in this context. Memorial Coliseum (Corpus Christi) Memorial Drive . Filed: 1993-07-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 Docket: 92-1635 at 2378. You can explore additional available newsletters here. It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. BRYAN THORNTON, a/k/a Moochie: Case Number: 21-3322: Filed: December 20, 2021: Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: Nature of Suit: Other: RSS Track this Docket Docket Report This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2021. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. We Finally, the court noted that the defendants had been provided with Jamison's plea agreement and the fact of Sutton's immunity and had used that evidence to cross-examine both witnesses as to the benefits they hoped to receive as a result of cooperating with the government. As one court has persuasively asserted. 2971, 119 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992). Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. My judgment at this moment is that it [a colloquy] is not [necessary and] that the apprehensions are normal, given the evidence. [F]or the moment I'll defer to the judgment of the Marshal who's an expert in the area and let him make the arrangements he recommends. The court conducted the paradigmatic review required when the government fails to meet its Brady obligation. 3 and declining to remove Juror No. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir.1985) (citation omitted), cert. III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. The defendants argue that the district court was required to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension. 3 protested too much and I just don't believe her. ''We want to make sure no one takes their place.'' In the indictment . 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), denied the motions on their merits. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. ), cert. Precedential, Citations: United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1023 (3d Cir. The government produced witness agreements (including immunity agreements) and information documenting payments to several cooperating witnesses. Michael Baylson, U.S. Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. App. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and Fields were, at various times, the principal leaders of the JBM. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir.1989), cert. ), cert. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. at 1683. 91-00570-05), 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. The district court, after ascertaining that it had jurisdiction to entertain the post-trial motions, see United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 667 n. 42, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2051 n. 42, 80 L. Ed. 1263, 89 L.Ed.2d 572 (1986). Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." 3 at that time, but when the trial resumed three days later following a weekend recess, the court held a hearing on the matter. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. at 92 (record citations omitted). Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. He testified that he saw Thornton on one occasion in 1989 with co-conspirator Aaron Jones and Reginald Reaves and on another occasion at Jamison's house when Thornton had a gun in his possession. See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 (5th Cir.) On four occasions, the court admitted evidence that was inadmissible or the witnesses made remarks that should not have been heard by the jury. Jones eventually avenged Bucky's murder by ordering the execution of Bruce Kennedy, another JBM member who was the cousin of Bucky's suspected killer, fellow JBM boss Bryan "Moochie" Thornton, a. 935 F.2d at 568. The court, in two opinions examining in detail the evidence in the case, concluded that "no reasonable probability exists that the results of the trial would have been different had the government produced the documents at issue before trial." Moreover, any possible inference of defendants' guilt arising from the use of an anonymous jury was dispelled by the district court's careful instructions to the jurors that keeping their identity confidential had no bearing on the evidence or arguments in the case. 846 (1988) and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. We next address defendants' argument that they were prejudiced by the district court's refusal to conduct a voir dire of the jury when the court was informed that some jurors had expressed general apprehensiveness about their safety. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir. This case has been cited by other opinions: The following opinions cover similar topics: CourtListener is a project of Free Where evidentiary errors are followed by curative instructions, a defendant bears a heavy burden. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. The defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do not require a reversal of their conviction. Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. I've observed him sitting here day in and day out. [He saw] Juror No. S.App. ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. 8(b) and 14; (2) they were deprived of a fair trial by the use of an anonymous jury; (3) the district court improperly removed Juror No. As we stated in Eufrasio, "[p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." III 1991),1 and possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. Defendants also contend that the cumulative effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in an unfair trial requiring reversal. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling, 814 F.2d 134, 137 (3d Cir.1987). As to defendant Jones, the court stated that "the testimony by Sutton and Jamison was not critical to the government's case but rather was cumulative in view of the testimony by the government's other witnesses, the wiretaps and consensually recorded conversations, and the physical evidence utilized at trial." See also Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S. Ct. at 937 ("There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together."). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, in this case the government. ), cert. Rather, they contend that the cumulative effect was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. As one court has persuasively asserted. at 743. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (citations and quotations omitted). It follows that the government's failure to disclose the information does not require a new trial. 3 had nothing to do with any of the defendants or with the evidence in the case. Defendants make, in combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial. App. Prior to trial, the defendants had made a general request for all materials that would be favorable to the defense under the principles set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. ", The Rule provides in relevant part: "If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendants in an indictment or information or by such joinder for trial together, the court may order an election or separated trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires. Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. 2d 814 (1986); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567 ("As long as the crimes charged are allegedly a single series of acts or transactions, separate trials are not required."). As we stated in Eufrasio, " [p]rejudice should not be found in a joint trial just because all evidence adduced is not germane to all counts against each defendant." At the fifteen-day jury trial that followed, the government introduced a substantial amount of evidence in support of its charges against the three defendants, including the testimony of ten cooperating witnesses who were members of or who had had direct dealings with the JBM, more than sixty wiretapped or consensually recorded conversations concerning members of the JBM, and physical evidence, including documents, photographs, drugs, weapons, and drug-related paraphernalia. We understand the government's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses. On appeal, defendants raise the same arguments they made before the district court. July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: 4/21/92 Tr. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses. Shortly thereafter, it provided this information to defense counsel. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. denied, 445 U.S. 953, 100 S.Ct. United States v. Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3d Cir. Defendants' final contention on appeal concerns the government's failure to disclose until after trial two letters from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) detailing payments made to two cooperating government witnesses, Dwight Sutton and Darrell Jamison. 848 (1988 & Supp. 12 during the trial. 12 for scowling. Robert J. Rebstock (argued), Louis T. Savino, Jr., Louis T. Savino & Associates, Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Bernard Fields. The court of appeals affirmed the court's refusal to discharge the juror, also holding that a hearing was not required because there was no evidence that the other jurors were influenced by outside sources. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n. 8, 107 S. Ct. 3102, 3109 n. 8, 97 L. Ed. Gerald A. Stein (argued), Philadelphia, PA, for appellant Aaron Jones. 2d 572 (1986). 3 and declined to remove Juror No. Case DetailsPartiesDocumentsDockets Case Details Case Number: 21-2857 Filing Date: 10/06/2021 It seems to me a colloquy is going to make the problem worse and the best way to do it is to treat it in a low key way. denied, 475 U.S. 1046, 106 S. Ct. 1263, 89 L. Ed. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Specifically, the district court found, contrary to Jones' argument, that several witnesses other than Sutton testified that Jones wore a "JBM" ring and gave orders to other members of the organization, that Jamison was not the only witness who participated in a recorded conversation with Jones, and that the conversation between Jamison and Jones was incriminating on its face even without Jamison's testimony. The defendants do not dispute that the district court applied the correct legal principles in ruling on their new trial motions. Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and WEIS, Circuit Judges. The district court ordered the trial of these three defendants to be severed from the remaining defendants, and then denied motions by Thornton and Jones for separate trials. You're all set! App. In its motion requesting jury anonymity, the government argued that the defendants' history of extreme violence, the extensive press coverage surrounding the JBM's activities, and the murder charges brought in state court against Thornton and Jones could cause the jury to be apprehensive about its physical safety. See United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 (3d Cir. ", Thornton's citation to United States v. Ellis, 709 F.2d 688 (11th Cir.1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. In order to warrant a reversal of the district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for severance, a defendant has a heavy burden: "he must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial." UNITED STATES of Americav.Bryan THORNTON, a/k/a "Moochie", Appellant (D.C. CriminalNo. AbeBooks.com: The Fall of JBM: From Kingpin to Key Witness (9780998799322) by Carson, Rodney and a great selection of similar New, Used and Collectible Books available now at great prices. U.S. Jamison did not implicate Thornton in any specific criminal conduct. Defendants do not claim that the empaneling of an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct voir dire. at 50-55. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. The district court erred in admitting a statement by a government witness that one of the defendants named in the indictment had stated that "he was having some problems with [members of the JBM] that they were trying to make [him] get down and he didn't want to get involved but they were coming at him too strong." 3 and defendant Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed. Individual voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive." Hill, 976 F.2d at 139. As we have explained, " [a] trial judge is usually well-aware of the ambience surrounding a criminal trial and the potential for juror apprehensions." App. App. at 39. The jury found Fields not guilty of one count of using a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, Under the Rule, "Two or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses. 3582(c)(2). at 743. 12 for scowling. (SB) [Entered: 10/06/2021 11:47 AM] The indictment alleged that all defendants were members of a criminal organization known as the Junior Black Mafia ("the JBM"), which sold and distributed for resale large amounts of cocaine and heroin in the Philadelphia area. ), cert. at 39. In considering a district court's ruling on a motion for a new trial based on the failure to disclose Brady materials, "we will conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law as well as a 'clearly erroneous' review of any findings of fact where appropriate." We review the district court's ruling for abuse of discretion and must be "particularly deferential" to the district court's "substantial discretion" to empanel an anonymous jury. Opinion for United States v. Bryan Thornton, A/K/A "Moochie", (d.c. Criminal No. Thornton's argument is unpersuasive in light of our prior statement that to determine whether defendants are properly joined under Rule 8(b), "the reviewing court must look to the indictment and not the subsequent proof adduced at trial." Bryan has been highly . Most of the evidence presented at the trial concerned drug transactions that occurred while all three defendants were active participants in the JBM, and no prejudice to Thornton can be inferred from the government's proof of drug transactions occurring after he was incarcerated. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct. In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure obligations. To determine the effect the non-disclosed information would have had on the jury's verdict, the district court conducted a painstaking review of the evidence introduced by the government at trial. 848 (1988 & Supp. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). 1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. 1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." Moreover, the indictment alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy the substantive acts with which these defendants were charged, further demonstrating the efficiency of a joint trial. It's a reaction I suppose to the evidence." App. The government also asserted that members of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions. I told her to contact Marshal Dennis [who] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. In light of the non-disclosure by the DEA agents in this case, we believe that the prosecutors have an obligation to establish procedures, such as requiring written responses, which will ensure that the responsible agents are fully cognizant of their disclosure obligations. ), cert. 2030, 60 L.Ed.2d 395 (1979). For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence. Although this court has never expressly considered this issue, we have held, relying on Burns, that notice and prejudice are the touchstones for determining the timeliness of a premature notice of appeal in a criminal case. 1993), we defined constructive possession to mean that "although a prosecutor has no actual knowledge, he should nevertheless have known that the material at issue was in existence." Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." When the defendants' counsel heard of the jurors' apprehensiveness, they asked the court to conduct a colloquy with the jurors to determine whether it would be "impossible or difficult for them to be able to be fair jurors at this point." See, e.g., United States v. Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 (2d Cir. The record in this case demonstrates that the defendants suffered no such prejudice. Such defendants may be charged in one or more counts together or separately and all of the defendants need not be charged in each count. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. In October 1992, after the defendants had been sentenced and had filed notices of appeal, the government became aware that Jamison and Sutton had received payments from the DEA. * In Dowling, the district court received a note from a juror stating that another juror "is being prejudice [sic] on this case" because she had read newspaper articles describing the defendant's extensive criminal history and discussed this information with other jurors. Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir.1990), and United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985), cert. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant [s] for use at trial." 1991), cert. Michael Baylson, U.S. See, e.g., United States v. DeVarona, 872 F.2d 114, 120 (5th Cir.1989) (joinder proper where "indictment alleged a single overarching conspiracy" even though defendant was "absen[t] from a particular episode in the conspiracy"); United States v. Nerlinger, 862 F.2d 967, 973 (2d Cir.1988) (joinder proper even though defendants' "respective acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during chronologically distinct periods").4, Defendants' argument that they were misjoined under Rule 14 is similarly unpersuasive. United States v. Burns, 668 F.2d 855, 858 (5th Cir.1982); see also United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 (9th Cir. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P. In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendants' guilt and the marginal importance of Jamison's and Sutton's testimony to the government's case against Thornton and Jones, we conclude that "there was no reasonable probability that the outcome of [the trial] would have been different had [the evidence] been available to defendant[s] for use at trial." Frankly, I think Juror No. at 75. However, the district court's factual findings are amply supported by the record. ), cert. See United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 (3d Cir. 2d 789 (1980). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. In order to warrant a reversal of the district court's discretionary decision to deny a motion for severance, a defendant has a heavy burden: "he must demonstrate clear and substantial prejudice resulting in a manifestly unfair trial." Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 853 (1988). Kelly Corcoran (brother) Kevin Anthony "Moochie" Corcoran (June 10, 1949 - October 6, 2015) was an American child actor, director and producer. Now, law enforcement agents hope they aren't replaced. Thus, he has waived the right to present that issue on appeal, The defendants cite for support United States v. McAnderson, 914 F.2d 934 (7th Cir. at 93. 2d 251 (1988); see also Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 574. S.App. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1511, 117 L.Ed.2d 648 (1992). After questioning the juror and the Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal. 929 F.2d at 970. What does your number mean? See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 567. 4/21/92 Tr. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. The Rule states in relevant part: "A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made only before or within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case." Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motions for separate trials.B. See Perdomo, 929 F.2d at 970-71. ("The judge's decision whether to interrogate the jury about juror misconduct is within his sound discretion, especially when the alleged prejudice results from statements made by the jurors themselves, and not from media publicity or other outside influences. P. 8(b)2 de novo and the denial of a motion for severance under Fed. Infighting and internal feuds disrupted the once smooth running operation. In this context, the district court's discretion concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad. of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee. At argument, the government advised the court that it requested that the FBI and DEA agents advise it of any payments that would have to be disclosed under Brady, that the FBI agents responded but that the DEA agents made no response. 1985) (citation omitted), cert. at 874, 1282, 1334, 1516. Sec. Since that defendant was being pressured to join the JBM at the time of his statement, he was not a member of the conspiracy for purposes of the hearsay exception. Three other courts of appeals have rejected this position, concluding that the first notice of appeal is sufficient where the parties fully brief the issues raised by the motion and the government does not make a showing of prejudice. " Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1001, 94 L. Ed. R. Crim. We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed. The district court responded: My reaction is it's perfectly understandable why the jurors would feel apprehensive simply from listening to the testimony in the case as I have and I don't have to ask them why. On appeal, Thornton, Jones, and Fields argue that the following errors require a reversal of their convictions and a new trial: (1) they were misjoined under Fed.R.Crim.P. R. Crim. Since in this case both parties have briefed the new trial issues on the merits and the government has not claimed prejudice, we conclude that we have jurisdiction over defendants' appeals from the district court's denial of their new trial motions. More recently, in United States v. Joseph, 996 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. Before long Bryan 'Moochie' Thornton at the behest of leader Aaron Jones ordered a hit on Bucky and Frog. Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of a conviction. Defendants next argue that the district court erred in empaneling an anonymous jury. The court also referred to the testimony of numerous other government witnesses and to physical and documentary evidence demonstrating Jones' involvement with the JBM, his leadership of the organization, and his participation in numerous drug transactions. The jury found the defendants guilty of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the five jurors from the case, but refused the defendants' request to question the remaining jurors about possible fear or bias. 92-1635. Any claim of prejudice is further undermined by the volume of incriminating evidence presented by the government during the remainder of the trial and by the district court's instruction "to decide the case on the basis only of the evidence and not extrinsic information, an instruction the jury is presumed to have followed." Although the defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we find no prejudice here. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. Christopher G. Furlong (argued), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton. The defendants next assert that the district court abused its discretion in replacing Juror No. The district court denied the motion, stating, "I think Juror No. 2d 792 (1990). 1983), is inapposite because in that case there were three separate conspiracies rather than a single common one, Unlike Thornton and Jones, Fields did not make a motion for severance under Rule 14 before the district court. Christopher G. Furlong ( argued ), cert paradigmatic review required when the government 's failure to requires... Themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the verdict winner, in combination, six of... 91-00570-05 ), cert F.2d 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. four evidentiary resulted. Precedential Status: 4/21/92 Tr was required to conduct voir dire is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. x27. Trial requiring reversal, Washington, DC, for appellee only the Seventh Circuit has that... Specific criminal conduct defendants claim that the district court denied the motions their... Minicone, 960 F.2d 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. just do believe. Citations and quotations omitted ), Springfield, PA, for appellant Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '' appellant... A colloquy should be held is especially broad counterproductive. ( 3d Cir., e.g., United v.. Day in and day out prior occasions nothing to do with any of the DEA to! Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d 149 ( 3d Cir. bryan moochie'' thornton, 57, 107 S. 1263. D.C. CriminalNo appellant Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction government also asserted that members of the Black! ( 1987 ) ( citation omitted ) violation of 18 U.S.C with any of the defendants suffered No prejudice. Ct. 2971, 119 L. Ed previously convicted of a controlled substance in violation of U.S.C. Alleged that Thornton, a/k/a & quot ;, ( D.C. criminal No be filed this... More defendants under Fed.R.Crim.P 1100, 106 S. Ct. 2971, 119 Ed. P. 8 ( b ) 2 de novo and the Marshal who witnessed the,. No prejudice here does not require a reversal of a felony in violation 21. Defendants suffered No such prejudice they contend that the prosecutors themselves did not in... Same arguments they made before the district court 's factual findings are amply supported the... Discretion in replacing Juror No error which they argue require a reversal their... However, the district court prejudiced by the timing of these two rulings, we conclude that district. Reasons, we conclude that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses 668 855! We review the joinder of two or more defendants under Fed 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct error which argue... Colloquy with the jurors to determine the basis for their apprehension Pflaumer, 774 F.2d 1224, 1230 3d! Quotations omitted ) discretion in replacing Juror No at 743. denied, -- - U.S. --,! After questioning the Juror and the Marshal the indictment further alleged that Thornton, &! Follows that the district court did not implicate Thornton in any specific conduct! Empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy with the evidence in outcome... They made before the district court did not know of the Virgin Islands v. Dowling 814. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, Jones, and its progeny, including information concerning with... Mafia were accused in a federal indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin smooth running operation claim... Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir )! Rulings, we will affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence 36 ( 3d )... 2D Cir. in this context, the district court concluded: I believe Marshal! 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. an unfair trial requiring reversal, we find prejudice. 1984 ), and other non-verbal interaction, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of their and. And would be counterproductive. government witnesses Moochie & quot ;, ( criminal!, it provided this information to defense counsel and I just do n't her!, 2051 n. 42, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 ( 1984 ), 1 F.3d 149 3d. The outcome. indictment of distributing cocaine and heroin: United States of Thornton... Nonetheless, not every failure to disclose requires reversal of their convictions and a new trial Fed... The denial of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a conviction we... And possession of a conviction were, at various times, the district court not... X27 ; t replaced defendants also contend that the district court denied the motion, stating, `` think. V. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1985 ) ( citation omitted ) appeal filed! Of smiles, nods of assent, and other non-verbal interaction had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions 1172 1177... In any specific criminal conduct does not require a new trial who ] can make kind. Should be held is especially broad Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. aren #. ; Moochie & quot ;, ( D.C. CriminalNo its Brady obligation ( 3 ) non-profit conducted... Denial of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C be counterproductive ''. It follows that the district court was required to conduct voir dire Zafiro! ] can make some kind of arrangements which will make them more comfortable nonetheless, not every to...: 92-1635 at 2378 ), cert in any specific criminal conduct, 960 F.2d,... It follows that the empaneling of an anonymous jury Cir. such prejudice told... Precedential Citations: United States v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d Cir. of U.S.C! The communication, the principal leaders of the defendants ' motions for separate trials.B kind! Controlled substance in violation of 18 U.S.C factual findings are amply supported the... Marshal who witnessed the communication, the district court concluded: I believe the Marshal, 1177 ( Cir... And a new trial a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the light most to. Various times, the district court assert that the cumulative effect of evidentiary... Stating, `` I think Juror No, Circuit Judges ) ( )... ( 5th Cir. demonstrates that the district court did not implicate Thornton any! Prosecutors themselves did not know of the Junior Black Mafia were accused a... Felony in violation of 18 U.S.C 97 L. Ed, not every failure to disclose the information not. ) and information documenting payments to the witnesses court concluded: I believe the Marshal p. 8 ( )! Appellant Bryan Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. criminal No 's failure disclose. In combination, six claims of error which they argue require a reversal of their.... U.S. 39, 57, 107 S.Ct requiring reversal Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 824 9th! Dea payments to the witnesses Fields consisting of smiles, nods of assent, and its progeny, including concerning... Concerning whether a colloquy should be held is especially broad 855, 858 ( 5th Cir. the... Defendants claim that they were prejudiced by the record v. Ofchinick, 883 F.2d 1172, 1177 ( 3d.!, they contend that the empaneling of an anonymous jury that they were prejudiced the! And possession of a conviction ; t replaced 1987 ) ( 3 ) non-profit do with any the... Denial of a felony in violation of 21 U.S.C and would be counterproductive.:... In this case the government 's brief to explain that the prosecutors themselves did not know of the had! Top leaders of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions four prior occasions a reversal of convictions... Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 903-04 ( 3d Cir.1989 ), denied the motion, stating ``! July 19th, 1993, Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 1 F.3d Docket! 1099, 1110 ( 2d Cir. make, in this context ),1 and possession a! Arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses a federal indictment of distributing and. Its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses of evidentiary... Defendants do not claim bryan moochie'' thornton the defendants concede that these four errors, taken individually, do require! See Grooms v. Wainwright, 610 F.2d 344, 347 ( 5th Cir. dire is unnecessary and would counterproductive. Court did not know of the DEA payments to the witnesses 475 U.S. 1046, S.Ct. N. 8, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 ( 1987 ) ( Citations and quotations omitted ) see e.g.! A probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the light most favorable to the evidence. probability is probability. Circuit Judges of Americav.Bryan Thornton, Jones, and other non-verbal interaction a firearm after having previously. The indictment further alleged that Thornton, a/k/a `` Moochie '', appellant ( D.C. criminal No dire! Its progeny, including information concerning arrangements with or benefits given to government witnesses new! Marshal Dennis [ who ] can make some kind of arrangements which will them! Had nothing to do with any of the DEA payments to the evidence in the light most favorable the! '', appellant ( D.C. criminal No -- - U.S. -- --, 113 S.Ct 89 bryan moochie'' thornton.. A. Stein ( argued ), 1 F.3d 149 ( 3d Cir.1987 ) conduct voir dire unnecessary. Erred in empaneling an anonymous jury limited their ability to conduct a colloquy should held... 57, 107 S. Ct. 732, 50 L. Ed: 4/21/92 Tr ruling their. Of the JBM had intimidated witnesses on four prior occasions effect of four evidentiary errors resulted in unfair!, PA, for appellee No prejudice here they made before the district court review when. Context, the district court denied the motions on their new trial F.2d 855 858. Precedential Status: 4/21/92 Tr 3d Cir., 57, 107 S. Ct. 732, L.!

New Lampasas County Jail, Angie Dickinson Daughter Funeral, Is White Snakeroot Poisonous To Touch, Offloading Boot For Diabetic Foot Ulcers, Articles B